The thing that really bothers me about Weinstein's approach is that, while he and his wife are scientists, they're exceedingly quick to assert their hunches as scientific fact. They wear their scientist labels on their sleeves but their thinking is far more ideological. In a recent podcast about fluoridation in tap water, they were talking about how they avoid iodized salt, because iodine is a reactive chemical and you don't want to OD on it. Ludicrous. You'd sooner die from the sheer quantity of salt you'd have to ingest before the iodine even starts to become a problem.
The thing is, you've had Nobel Prize winners like Linus Pauling promote vitamin C as a panacea. Or Dawkins use his biology credentials to say something about philosophy/religion. Scientists using their credentials to give credence to whatever their particular argument in whatever domain is nothing new. In fact, it is part of what the Weinstein's general critique of the scientific realm is. Perhaps they lack the self-awareness to see when they do it themselves, but in my mind, no way are you going to somehow paint them as _worse_ than any other PhD scientist talking with their credentials.
>Or Dawkins use his biology credentials to say something about philosophy/religion.
It may be hard to imagine now, but at the time several major religious institutions had hard positions on subjects his biological knowledge was relevant to. His writings were instrumental in bringing about the retreat of those institutions from certain corporeal claims.
You're conflating several things. Dawkins making philosophy hot takes is not in the same category as promoting Vitamin C as a panacea for disease, which is literally just scientifically wrong. As is Weinstein's claim about tap water, which is probably the offshoot of some sort of "the government is mindcontrolling us with tapwater" conspiracy which they have bought into because both Weinstein's have gone completely and utterly mad.
> In a recent podcast about fluoridation in tap water, they were talking about how they avoid iodized salt, because iodine is a reactive chemical and you don't want to OD on it.
To summarize their point: the fluoridation of drinking water and toothpaste is unjustified, because what is used is not the fluoride salt that has been demonstrated to have benefits for stronger bones/teeth, and on top of that the distribution method is absurd because you can't control for how much water people drink. Then Bret brings up that iodized salt is a similar case in that the distribution method via table salt doesn't allow you to titrate, but that it has nevertheless been a success that solved major problems. That they personally don't use iodized salt because you only need to avoid a deficiency, which is also achieved via a balanced diet, is a separate point.
I don't see how this comment has anything to do with the article.
They are scientists and they made errors outside of their field. Unless you can prove this is common to them. I don't see how this particular error they made is relevant to the discussion at all.
It could be that part of the problem is that you only see their public persona. Start adding all the weasel words to imply that you think that something is 73% likely to be mostly true and you lose an audience
Everyone (well, most everyone) could stand to examine their own problems (well, issues) with stating opinions as fact.
It's funny because that's actually literally the kind of thing they do on the show in question, for which there is apparently quite a sizable audience. For example around April or May 2020 Bret presented a model assigning probabilities for various scenarios of lab leak vs zoonotic origin of Sars-Cov-2 (the kind of discussion for which they were branded conspiracy theorists for a long time).
I believe the Latin name for your post is ad hominem i.e. "Weinstein is a bad person."
Maybe you could address what he actually said, instead of attacking him & Heather?
I watched the video [1] I assume you're talking about. The word "reactive" is never spoken (I searched). While I do buy iodized salt and I'm not worried about it, their concerns about getting too MUCH iodine are measured and well-spoken. The concerns about fluoridation are, too (that the evidence for it is very thin, and the fluoride in water is not the same compound as was tested). Again, these are not wild-eyed conspiracists.
Fine, so he’s an idiot. Who cares! It changes nothing to me. The entire idea of outlawing misinformation and fake news is absurd. Let him speak, let his viewers be misinformed, the world keeps on turning.
You need to check, though, because it's not added to all salt. Yes if you buy traditional "table salt" such as sold by Morton, it is iodized. Kosher salt, sea salt, salt crystals for use in a grinder, and other "natural" salts are generally not.
Or, you know, the citizens of hyper progressive Portland, Oregon, who voted down a measure to finally fluoridate the city’s tap water less than 10 years ago.
It’s no different from religious fundamentalists who put their own whims and ideologies into God’s mouth. They’re just replacing God with science, but it’s the same schtick.
At my university, the fratboys were far, far, FAR more disruptive than the LGBT groups. But we go with it; fratboy are an accepted pupal stage of American men it seems
Really neat! This ought to be a Hacker News "why don't they just...?" holy grail. Now applying homomorphic encryption to solve privacy woes might actually be possible!
It's vertical integration. As long as we're wishing for fairness I wish Apple would share those tasty M1 processors with the rest of the non-Mac world.
So, enlighten me, how does another app store increase safety if Apple is writing the APIs used by the other app stores? clearly it doesn’t, it just provides options for more of the same. so then I wonder what the point to all of this is, and the only idea that comes to mind is a bunch of tech savvy android users really want to use iphone but can’t/won’t until there’s additional gatekeepers, err i mean app stores.
We're just rolling our eyes that people actually believe that the full control apple wants over their products has anything to do with security.
It's the most profitable course of action, that's all there is to it.
But to address your question: if apple allowed other stores, they could be significantly more picky about what's allowed on their store. This would consequently increase the security for people only using the official store.
This is obviously a no-go however, as that would be less profitable then the current situation.
I’m still failing to see the hand wavy logic that results in them being more picky if there are more stores. garbage apps (apps providing no real value but are otherwise safe) are not the problem. malware is. so they’re somehow being less picky about malware being on the store yet increasing the quantity of stores will allow them to remove more malware?
also you do understand businesses need to make profit, and keeping their customers happy is definitely the right way to do it in my book. so given your logic here, how do you explain all of the other privacy features apple gives away for free?
I had seen them on the street, but always said v6 on them, and I don't care about power, would rather have better gas millage.
Looking it up, they do have 4 cylinder versions. I think the other problem is the sight lines don't look great but admittedly I have not been in a Vernza. I see the 2021 version is now a basically a SUV and not a wagon.
